New study challenges signs of life at Exoplanet K2-18b

Expectations were high earlier this month, when a university group of Cambridge astronomers They reported having found the “stronger evidence” of life in an exoplanet called K2-18B. Its statements arose from dimethylply detection (DMS), a gas linked to biological activity in the earth’s atmosphere. Conducted using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)The discovery suggested that the planet could be an aqueous and habitable world. But a detailed examination of the facts now begs serious doubts about the truth of their bold statements.

Skepticism grows over K2-18B life claims amid new analysis and requires more data

According to to study Posted on April 22, Jake Taylor of Oxford University applied a neutral statistical test that did not detect clear molecular signatures on JWST data, just a flat line. Studies suggest that the signal is noisy or too weak to provide strong conclusions. Cambridge’s first study revealed a three sigma DM detection far below the five sigma threshold usually needed to prove great scientific discoveries. Critics also questioned the absence of supporting compounds such as ethane and claimed that models employed may have exaggerated DM levels.

Astrobiologists Eddie Schwieterman and Michaela Musilova observe that current evidence do not meet strict criteria to prove life; Thus, it is necessary that several independent teams analyze the same data set.

Complicating further, new research indicates that the K2-18B can orbit very close to its star to retain liquid water, possibly excluding it from the habitable zone. In addition to skepticism, DMS was recently detected in a cold cometsuggesting that these molecules may exist lifeless. The main author of the original research, Madhusudhan, supported the findings, but disregarded Taylor’s test as simple and “irrelevant” for his statements.

Most scientists agree that the confirmation or denial of the existence of DMS in K2-18b’s atmosphere It depends on additional surveys solid and reviewed by pairs. The argument is still in progress, an ongoing narrative that illustrates how science develops not for certainty, but by questioning and correction.